Charles K Jimingo

 

 

1. The Panel was provided with a signed certificate as proof that the Notice of Hearing had been sent by email on 21 January 2026 to the email address shown for the Registrant on the HCPC Register. 

 

2. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and was satisfied that notice had been properly served in accordance with Rule 3 (proof of service) and Rule 6 (date, time, and venue) of the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (as amended) (hereafter ‘the Rules’).

 

 

3. Ms Sampson, appearing on behalf of the HCPC, made an application to proceed in the Registrant’s absence. In doing so, she drew the Panel’s attention to the HCPC’s Skeleton Argument and that the Registrant had emailed the HCPC on 10 February 2026 and informed it that he would not be attending today’s review hearing. In his email, the Registrant stated: 

 

 

4. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and took into account the guidance as set out in the HCPTS Practice Note “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant”. The Panel determined that it was reasonable and in the public interest to proceed with the hearing, as permitted by Rule 11 of the Rules, for the following reasons: 

 

• the Panel noted that the Registrant had provided it with an email which outlined that he was aware of today’s hearing and would not be attending. The Panel therefore formed the view that the Registrant had voluntarily absented himself from the hearing; 

 

• the Panel also noted that there has been no application to adjourn and no indication from the Registrant that he would be willing or able to attend on an alternative date and therefore re-listing the hearing would serve no useful purpose;

 

• whilst the Panel recognised that there may be some disadvantage to the Registrant in not being present and able to make oral submissions to it, the Panel noted that the Registrant had been provided with every opportunity to attend the hearing and he had failed to do so. The Panel also noted that any disadvantage caused to the Registrant in not attending was mitigated by the Panel having regard to his written representations; and 

 

• finally, the Panel noted its duty to act in a manner which was in the public interest, and in order to achieve that aim it should act in a fair, economical, and expeditious manner. Therefore, taking all of the aforementioned points into account and noting that the efficient disposal of cases concerning practitioners is of very real importance, the Panel determined that it should proceed in the absence of the Registrant because the public interest in proceeding with the case outweighed any detriment to the Registrant in not being present. 

 

 

5. The Registrant is an HCPC-registered Occupational Therapist. He was previously employed as an Occupational Therapist by Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust (hereafter ‘the Trust’) between mid to late October 2021 and December 2021. During his employment, he was based at Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Woolwich.

 

6. On 12 November 2021, a formal complaint was made about his conduct towards Colleague A. In this complaint Colleague A alleged that whilst at work, the Registrant had made inappropriate comments to her. These comments included, but were not limited to, stating “your eyes are very tempting” and “don’t worry about your weight, you look fine”.

 

7. In addition to these comments, it was also alleged that the Registrant removed his wedding ring and tried to place this ring on several of Colleague A’s fingers. 

 

8. The Trust commenced an internal investigation. However, the Registrant resigned on 8 December 2021, before the disciplinary process had concluded. 

 

9. During the investigation, it was alleged that when the Registrant was questioned about the wedding ring incident, he allegedly gave an account which he knew to be incorrect and which differed materially to the depiction of the incident on CCTV footage. 

 

10. After the Registrant left his role at the Trust, he obtained another role in which he was employed as a Band 6 Occupational Therapist at Livingstone Community Hospital by Virgin Care. 

 

11. A referral form was submitted to the HCPC by LH (Occupational Therapy Lead, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust) on 9 February 2022. This referral form summarised many of the alleged incidents. 

 

12. Following receipt of this referral form, the HCPC commenced an investigation and interviewed Colleague C, who alleged that the Registrant made inappropriate comments about her appearance, such as the fact that he found her attractive. 

 

13. A substantive hearing before the Conduct and Competence Committee took place on 12 - 15 August 2024 and 30 - 31 October 2024.

 

14. The panel found the facts proved in their entirety and that they amounted to misconduct. It also found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired on both the personal and public components and it imposed a sanction of Suspension for 9 months. 

 

15. On impairment, the panel found the following (summarised): 

 

• there was limited evidence of any meaningful acknowledgement by the Registrant of the seriousness of his misconduct; 

 

• there was limited evidence of any insight by him into his behaviour; 

 

• that the evidence demonstrated an attitudinal issue and a serious failure to grasp the unacceptable nature of his conduct and behaviour and its negative impact on his colleagues; 

 

• that there was limited evidence to demonstrate any insight, reflection, or positive development by the Registrant of this attitude; 

 

• that there was limited evidence that the Registrant had reflected on, grasped, or understood the nature and gravity of his sexually motivated conduct and had not adequately remedied his practice; 

 

• that there was a real risk of repetition and it was likely to place colleagues at risk of harm; and 

 

• the misconduct was of such gravity and nature that not to make a finding would seriously undermine public confidence in the profession.

 

16. In its decision, the substantive hearing panel considered that a future panel may be assisted by the Registrant providing the following in advance of the review of the Suspension Order: 

 

• evidence of well-developed insight, such as a written reflective piece; 

 

• evidence of further professional development in the areas of professional boundaries, dignity, respect, and trust; and 

 

• references and testimonials relevant to the findings in this case.

 

17. The first review of the Suspension Order took place on 23 July 2025. The Registrant attended the hearing, gave evidence on Oath, and was cross-examined, and both parties made submissions to the reviewing panel. 

 

18. The panel considered whether there had been any material change since the Order was imposed. It acknowledged that the Registrant had undertaken “multiple” training courses and had provided a reflective piece. It found that he had demonstrated some “improved insight” in relation to professional boundaries and a developing awareness of appropriate conduct. However, the panel concluded that the Registrant’s insight remained incomplete. It found that he had not demonstrated a sufficient understanding of the seriousness of the findings made against him, nor had he adequately reflected on the impact of his misconduct on his colleagues, the wider public, and the profession. The panel also noted that the Registrant made no reference to the finding of dishonesty, either in his written material or in his oral evidence. It considered that this demonstrated a lack of insight into that serious finding. Whilst the Registrant had undertaken training that appeared to be relevant to his misconduct, the panel found that there was insufficient evidence as to how he would apply his learning in practice to avoid repetition of his misconduct. 

 

19. Considering all the above, the panel concluded that a risk of repetition remained and that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired in relation to both the personal and public components. The panel imposed a further six-month Suspension Order to provide the Registrant with the opportunity to develop full insight, meaningful remediation, and evidence of attitudinal change, including reflection on dishonesty, practical application of training, testimonials, and ongoing Continuing Professional Development (‘CPD’). 

 

20. In its decision, the panel considered that a future panel “would benefit from the Registrant’s continued engagement and attendance at the hearing” and would be assisted by the Registrant providing evidence “that he had undertaken steps that would facilitate a safe and effective return to the Register without restriction”, including:

 

• A reflection on how the misconduct impacted on the Registrant’s colleagues, the public, and the profession. The reflection should include comment on the findings of breach of professional boundaries as well as dishonesty. 

 

• Evidence of how the Registrant will, or has, used the training he has undertaken to ensure his previous misconduct will not be repeated. 

 

• References / testimonials regarding his character within the work environment, whether that be in paid or voluntary employment. 

 

• Evidence that he has kept his knowledge and skills up to date during this further review period (e.g. evidence of continued professional development).

 

 

 

 

21. Ms Sampson outlined the background of the case to the Panel, as the Panel had indicated at the outset of the hearing that it had read all of the papers placed before it, which included the following:

 

i. HCPC service bundle – 4 pages;

 

ii. HCPC hearing bundle – 124 pages; and

 

iii. HCPC Skeleton Argument – 12 pages. 

 

22. Ms Sampson also submitted the following to the Panel: 

 

• the HCPC acknowledged the steps that the Registrant had taken since the previous review; however, the HCPC was of the view that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired and that the current Suspension Order should be extended by six months to sufficiently protect the public and uphold professional standards; 

 

• the Panel was invited to consider whether the reflective statement provided by the Registrant sufficiently addressed his sexually motivated and dishonest conduct; 

 

• the previous reviewing panel specifically invited the Registrant to provide information about the content of the courses completed and to demonstrate how that learning has been, or will be, applied in practice to prevent repetition of his misconduct; 

 

• the previous panel invited the Registrant to provide specific detail about the content of the courses attended, to demonstrate how learning has, or will be, implemented in practice; 

 

• whilst the Registrant described having gained “tools” and “frameworks”, the material provided to the Panel contained limited detail as to the substantive content of the courses that he had undertaken or the specific mechanisms by which his practice will change in the future; 

 

• there was limited independent corroboration or objective evidence demonstrating application in a professional setting, whether in paid or voluntary employment; 

 

• the testimonials provided by the Registrant were limited in scope. Several were undated, some did not identify the author’s role or organisation, and none addressed the misconduct which formed the basis of the proceedings. Accordingly, the testimonials were of limited value to the Panel; 

 

• in respect of an update on the two other complaints which were before the HCPC, the cases had met the threshold for further investigation and referral to the Investigating Committee (‘IC’); however, no case to answer decision had been taken yet; and

 

• given the aforementioned, the Registrant had not fully addressed the issues identified in the previous panels’ decisions and had not yet demonstrated a sufficiently well-developed level of insight and, in these circumstances, the risk of repetition of his conduct remained.

 

 

23. Notwithstanding that he had not attended the hearing, the Registrant provided a reflective piece which was placed before the Panel and stated the following: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

24. The Panel took into account the documents furnished to it by the parties (as outlined above) and it also had regard to the Registrant’s written reflections and the HCPC’s oral submissions and Skeleton Argument. 

 

25. The Panel considered the relevant Practice Notes issued by the HCPTS, “Fitness to Practise Impairment” and “Review of Article 30 Sanction Orders”, together with the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics.

 

26. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who had, amongst other things, reminded it that the purpose of the review is to consider the issue of current impairment of the Registrant. The Legal Assessor also reminded the Panel of the following: 

 

• the Panel could have regard to a number of factors when reviewing the Order; namely, the previous panels’ findings, the extent to which the Registrant has engaged with the regulatory process, the scope and level of insight, and the risk of repetition; 

 

• the Panel could take account of a range of issues when considering current impairment, which in essence comprises two components:

 

a) the ‘personal’ component: the current competence and behaviour of the Registrant; and

 

b) the ‘public’ component: the need the protect the public, declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour, and maintain public confidence in the profession. 

 

• it is only if the Panel determines that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired that the Panel should go on to consider sanction by applying the guidance as set out in the HCPC Sanctions Policy;

 

• the Registrant bears the “persuasive burden” of demonstrating that he has fully acknowledged the deficiencies which led to the original findings and has addressed his impairment sufficiently through “insight, application, education, supervision or other achievement” Abrahaem v GMC [2008] EWHC 183; and

 

• the principle of proportionality requires the Panel to consider the Registrant’s interests to be balanced against the interests of the public.

 

27. The Panel had regard to the previous panels’ determinations and, in making its decision, the Panel had regard to both the personal and public elements of impairment. 

 

28. The Panel noted that the Registrant’s misconduct in this case centred around sexually motivated conduct in respect of two colleagues and dishonesty. The Panel first considered whether the Registrant remains impaired on the ‘personal’ component. Having done so, it determined that he does. In forming this view, the Panel considered the Registrant’s reflective statement, dated 23 January 2026 (outlined above), and the CPD and testimonials provided by him. In doing so, the Panel noted that whilst the Registrant accepts responsibility for the breaches of professional boundaries and the finding of dishonesty and has reflected on the impact on his colleagues, which in the Panel’s view demonstrated a further progression of the Registrant’s insight, the Panel considered that it was still lacking and was not sufficient to demonstrate that he has full insight. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s insight is still developing. Whilst the Registrant acknowledges his wrongdoing, the Panel considered that the reflection provided by him remains very generalised and, with regards to the dishonest element of his misconduct, even though he acknowledged it, the Panel considered his reflections to be very limited in this regard. For example, the Panel noted that his reflection does not outline why his actions occurred or how he would prevent them from recurring. The Panel accepted Ms Sampson’s submission to it that whilst the Registrant referenced having acquired “tools” and “strategies”, the Registrant does not address how these will be utilised to ensure that there is no repetition of his misconduct and, in the Panel’s view, this meant that it could not rule out that his conduct would not be repeated. 

 

29. Further, the Panel was disappointed that, notwithstanding the previous review panel’s indication that the Registrant should continue to engage and attend a future review hearing, the Registrant had not attended today’s review hearing. Consequently, this prevented the Panel from being able to ask the Registrant questions about the implementation of his learning or about his reflections on his dishonest conduct, and the Panel was left unable to clarify matters with the Registrant. 

 

30. Additionally, whilst the Panel noted that the Registrant had taken a number of steps to engage and undertake continued learning and personal development, and in this regard it considered that he had demonstrated a commitment to the profession, after reviewing the CPD more carefully, the Panel noted that some of the courses were not relevant to the matters being considered and further, where relevant courses had been undertaken, there was nothing from the Registrant outlining his learning from the courses attended, a factor which the Panel also noted was highlighted by the previous review panel in July 2025. 

 

31. In respect of the Registrant’s testimonials, the Panel considered that they lacked relevant content or detail about his conduct in a current working environment and the Panel also noted that some of the testimonials presented had been obtained prior to the substantive hearing. In this regard, the Panel did not consider that the testimonials were sufficiently detailed or up to date for it to place any reliance upon. 

 

32. Given the aforementioned, the Panel considered that it could not yet be confident that the Registrant has demonstrated the required insight or that he has taken sufficient steps to remediate his failings, and therefore it could also not be confident that his behaviour would not be repeated. Consequently, the Panel was not satisfied that the Registrant does not still pose an ongoing risk to the public. The Panel therefore concluded that in light of the above, taking the previous panels’ findings into account, the Registrant remains impaired on the personal component. Risk of repetition has been reduced but still remains.

 

33. The Panel then went on to consider the public component of impairment. The Panel reminded itself that part of its role is to maintain professional standards and uphold confidence in the Occupational Therapist profession. Having regard to this, and the fact that the Registrant had failed to remedy his identified failings which related to very serious matters, and having regard to the fact that he is the subject of further similar complaints before the HCPC, the Panel was satisfied that a member of the public appraised of all of the circumstances of this case would have their confidence in the profession and the Regulator undermined if a finding of current impairment was not made on public interest grounds. The Panel therefore determined that the Registrant is impaired on the public interest component also. 

 

34. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains currently impaired on both the personal and public components. 

 

35. Having determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired, the Panel went on to consider what sanction, if any, was appropriate to impose.

 

36. The Panel considered the options of taking no action and/or a Caution Order. However, it decided that neither would provide adequate protection for the public in view of the serious findings in the case, which included sexually motivated conduct and dishonesty, nor would either of these sanctions uphold public confidence in the profession or the HCPC.

 

37. Having discounted taking no action and a Caution Order, the Panel next considered the option of a Conditions of Practice Order. However, after carefully considering the matter, the Panel was in agreement with the substantive hearing panel that such an order was inappropriate in view of the findings in this case.

 

38. In forming this view, the Panel also had regard to paragraph 106 of the HCPC Sanctions Policy, which it noted states: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

39. In the Panel’s view, as outlined above, the Registrant lacks insight into his conduct. Further, the Panel considered that the Registrant’s conduct could be considered to be too serious and attitudinal in nature. Therefore, workable conditions of practice could not be devised to address his conduct.

 

40. The Panel next considered the option of extending the Suspension Order versus imposing a Striking Off Order. In doing so, the Panel had regard to Paragraph 121 of the HCPC Sanctions Policy, which it noted states: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

41. Having regard to the substantive hearing panel’s determination, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant’s conduct represented a serious departure from the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics. Additionally, the Panel also considered that whilst the Registrant has not demonstrated full insight into his conduct at the current time, it also considered that he was on a journey to doing so. Further, the Panel had regard to the substantive hearing panel’s findings that the Registrant is likely to be able to remedy his failings, notwithstanding that they relate to sexually motivated and dishonest conduct. Consequently, the Panel considered, having regard to all the matters outlined before it, that a further Suspension Order should be imposed to permit the Registrant with a further opportunity to comply with the recommendations outlined below in full. 

 

42. In forming the view that a further period of suspension was the appropriate order, the Panel also considered paragraphs 130 and 131 of the HCPC Sanctions Policy in respect of a Striking Off Order and in doing so it noted that paragraph 131 states the following: 

 

 

 

 

 

43. Having considered paragraphs 130 and 131, the Panel noted that the Registrant has demonstrated developing insight into his conduct and that he had demonstrated a willingness to resolve matters. Consequently, the Panel considered that a Striking Off Order was disproportionate at the current time. 

 

44. In determining to extend the current Order, the Panel took into account the impact this would have on the Registrant, but concluded that the need to protect the public outweighed his interests and that no other sanction would adequately protect the public or uphold public confidence in the profession or in the regulatory process. 

 

45. Accordingly, the Panel made a Suspension Order for a period of six months. The Panel considered that a six-month order was required to permit the Registrant with a further opportunity to reflect on his conduct, demonstrate insight, and provide evidence of further remediation. The Panel determined that six months would allow the Registrant additional opportunities to demonstrate sustained and embedded remediation. This time period would also permit the HCPC to conclude its investigation into the new matters raised in respect of the Registrant’s conduct and would better inform a review panel when it reviews the Order. 

 

46. The Panel also determined that a reviewing panel would be assisted by: 

 

• attendance at a future review hearing; 

 

• evidence that the Registrant has developed full insight into his misconduct;

 

• evidence of strategies for avoiding repetition of his misconduct and development of an understanding of his responsibilities towards duty of candour and / or honesty;

 

• reflections of his learning from relevant training attended; and 

 

• testimonials / references from current paid and / or unpaid work addressing his behaviour in the workplace, including, but not limited to, professional boundaries in the workplace.